Jeffrey D Myers
Senior Member
I already have it, is the problem (from before my boycott of new CH releases).
I really enjoyed the two scenarios of genesis II I played.
(ducks as he waits for bullets to fly towards him)
But I must admit I do love asl being in other than WW2 settings which I view as a compliment to the rules
We have a similar saying here in the states: when sleeping with a stranger, use a condom to avoid the clap.When the park rangers warm you about poison ivy, don't leave the trail!
I believe that was the inspiration for the song, "Poison Ivy."We have a similar saying here in the states: when sleeping with a stranger, use a condom to avoid the clap.
I would not call this a mental block but rather a focus of interest. ASL rules may work for numerous engagements outside the WW2 framework, but maybe people just prefer publishers to focus on WW2 which matches their prime interest, rather than to dissipate their limited resources on side-shows from their perspective. At least this would be my personal POV.If I was doing a master's degree or Ph.D in psychology, I think it would be an interesting exercise to explore the mental block many ASLers have against applying the system outside of WW2 strictly defined. While it's often rationalized by reference to the rules, it's not objectively justifiable on a scenario-by-scenario basis at the scale ASL represents -- there were plenty of tactical level engagements into the 1960s where all the combatants were equipped with the functionally the same kinds of small arms used during WW2 and no AFVs, OBA, or air support involved.
I think there is something else here. A couple of years ago before his passing, wasn't Ian Daglish working on an Action Pack covering a hypothetical Sea Lion campaign? Some responded negatively in that they did not want to play hypothetical engagements. But if it was a group of 4-6-7s and some SW vs some 4-5-7 and SW on board 10, what did it matter if board 10 was in the north of France or north of London? Apparently to a lot of people it mattered quite a bit.I would not call this a mental block but rather a focus of interest. ASL rules may work for numerous engagements outside the WW2 framework, but maybe people just prefer publishers to focus on WW2 which matches their prime interest, rather than to dissipate their limited resources on side-shows from their perspective. At least this would be my personal POV.
von Marwitz
If I was doing a master's degree or Ph.D in psychology, I think it would be an interesting exercise to explore the mental block many ASLers have against applying the system outside of WW2 strictly defined. While it's often rationalized by reference to the rules, it's not objectively justifiable on a scenario-by-scenario basis at the scale ASL represents -- there were plenty of tactical level engagements into the 1960s where all the combatants were equipped with the functionally the same kinds of small arms used during WW2 and no AFVs, OBA, or air support involved.
This is where things do become problematic in porting the game system past the mid-50's. You can always create a set of rules for the missiles and other new weapon technologies, but it's the enhanced communications that will change how infantry performs.radios down to the squad level or lower
I would be curious as to which, if any conflicts the major (MMP, BFP) ASL publishers regard as 'sideshows '. When I consider the massive and apparently never-ending amount of Eastern Front/post-1943 NW Europe ASL content being produced, even the PTO seems like a 'sideshow' from their marketing standpoint.I would not call this a mental block but rather a focus of interest. ASL rules may work for numerous engagements outside the WW2 framework, but maybe people just prefer publishers to focus on WW2 which matches their prime interest, rather than to dissipate their limited resources on side-shows from their perspective. At least this would be my personal POV.
For the record:
There's enough TPPs around to serve everyone's needs as I see it. So I am all fine if they take up any demand that might be out there. But I'd prefer that MMP sticks to WW2 concering ASL (or at least does not go beyond KWASL).
von Marwitz
Respectfully, I beg to differ in regards to 'enhanced communications ', specifically in the 1960's era context. Having had plenty of personal experience with using 1960-70 era U.S. made comms gear, I can assure you that these radios are not enough of a technological leap from WWII to significantly alter the ASL experience. And certainly not enough to diminish or enhance the effect of the omniscient, all-seeing ASL player.This is where things do become problematic in porting the game system past the mid-50's. You can always create a set of rules for the missiles and other new weapon technologies, but it's the enhanced communications that will change how infantry performs.
Well, there I go. Shot down in flames again...I wholeheartedly agree with Yuri...
Not really so sure that this is especially true as the US Army at least still relied upon the SCR series of radios well into the 60's & even used somewhat in the early 70's. Its primary means of communication well into the 80's still relied upon wire commo, primarily for security and reliability reasons. The AN/VRC or AN/PRC "solid state" radios weren't used in large quantities in many ground units until about 1965 when the Viet-Nam War and its resultant logistical needs brought large quantities of newer equipment into the field. In fact even in 1969 I was trained to calibrate tube radios with an oscilloscope and we relied upon HF AM RATT (Radio, Auxiliary Tele-Type) rigs well into the 80's replete with a punched tape readout. Even the vaunted back-packed AN/PRC-25 (Prick 25 to most of us), was barely considered solid state and indeed was not actually a solid state radio until the the AN/PRC-77 was adopted (Identical in looks, usage and revilement for those that had to carry it), and it was usually also, erroneously, called the Prick 25.This is where things do become problematic in porting the game system past the mid-50's. You can always create a set of rules for the missiles and other new weapon technologies, but it's the enhanced communications that will change how infantry performs.